There are endless problems with the environment and the big scheme of things is very overwhelming to those who want to solve the issues, in turn, nothing is done to solve the problems. “The Environmental crisis: The Devil is in the Generalities” by Ross McKitrick explains how the result of the generalization of the word environment causes people to believe the world is always in an environmental crisis. McKitrick’s essay is effective in displaying the overall effects of generalizing the word environment. His two main concerns and insightful views on who to blame for such environmental crisis’ make his argument valid and compelling. The overall idea of being “pro-environmentalist” is great and McKitrick touches on how people do want
…show more content…
Thus the air quality index would not have attained enough past information to formally state that air pollution has increased. McKitrick is credible to what he says as he has done lots of his own research, proving that wealth correlates with lower air pollution levels. His previously mentioned, second-year course that he taught, validated his research as a student had challenged his research to be biased. McKitrick “invited him to go to the library and find all the data that he could” (15), of course, he proved the student wrong. McKitrick’s second point talks about “environmental crisis”, he classifies environmental problems as: “non-issues, situations of concern, problems, and actual crises” (16). He explains the ongoing discussion of global warming and how it’s hard to approach such a large issue. One suggestion was to “implement a tax on carbon dioxide emissions”, this would greatly reduce emissions. Although global warming is a large environmental problem, McKitrick did not touch on many of the other aspects. He solely focused on air pollution and global warming which makes his writing biased towards those issues. He had used minimal factual evidence to support his arguments, there’s less proof and the reader may question where this information comes from. McKitrick replaced the factual evidence with anecdotes that he had experienced, they were relevant to his arguments but without the quantitative data, he fell short. He discusses a lot about why things need to change, but not necessarily how to change. The essay would be a lot more enticing if he had explained ways to solve the problem not just point them
Thus the air quality index would not have attained enough past information to formally state that air pollution has increased. McKitrick is credible to what he says as he has done lots of his own research, proving that wealth correlates with lower air pollution levels. His previously mentioned, second-year course that he taught, validated his research as a student had challenged his research to be biased. McKitrick “invited him to go to the library and find all the data that he could” (15), of course, he proved the student wrong. McKitrick’s second point talks about “environmental crisis”, he classifies environmental problems as: “non-issues, situations of concern, problems, and actual crises” (16). He explains the ongoing discussion of global warming and how it’s hard to approach such a large issue. One suggestion was to “implement a tax on carbon dioxide emissions”, this would greatly reduce emissions. Although global warming is a large environmental problem, McKitrick did not touch on many of the other aspects. He solely focused on air pollution and global warming which makes his writing biased towards those issues. He had used minimal factual evidence to support his arguments, there’s less proof and the reader may question where this information comes from. McKitrick replaced the factual evidence with anecdotes that he had experienced, they were relevant to his arguments but without the quantitative data, he fell short. He discusses a lot about why things need to change, but not necessarily how to change. The essay would be a lot more enticing if he had explained ways to solve the problem not just point them